- (1.) In these appeals the Revenue is appellant. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short 'the Act) (U.P. Act.No. XXIV of 1964), as amended by No. 15 of 1974 and No. 5 of 1986, is in force, the Act provides for the control of storage, gradation and price of molasses produced by sugar factories and the regulations of supply and distribution thereof in Uttar Pradesh, Section 8(4) of the Act provides that the occupier of a sugar factory shall be liable to pay to the State Government administrative charges at such rate, not exceeding five rupees per quintal as the State may from time to time notify, on the molasses sold or supplied by him. Section 5 of the Act enables the occupier to recover from the person to whom the molasses is sold or supplied an amount of equivalent to the amount of administrative charges in addition to the price of molasses.
(2.) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by his order held that the Adminis-trative charges collected by the State Government under Section 8(4) of the Act is to be included in the accessible value of molasses cleared by the respondent. An appeal was carried against that order. The Commissioner (appeals) held that the administrative charges collected by the State Government under the provisions of section 8(4) of the Act is a type of impost and such impost is in the nature of a "tax" as defined under Articles 366 of the Constitution and, on that basis, he held that the administrative charges paid by the respondent is not liable to be included in the assessable value as defined under section 4(4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The revenue filed an appeal before the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the tribunal") wherein it is contended, as has been done before us now, that under section 4(4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act only duties on Excise, Sales tax and "other taxes", if any payable, are to be excluded from the assessable value and administrative charges levied under the Act cannot be equated with "other taxes". The Tribunal held that in terms of section 4(4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act assessable value in relation to excisable goods will not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and "other taxes" payable on such goods. If the expression "tax" is understood in the widest sense it would include all money raised by taxation including taxes levied by the Union and State Legislature and rates and other charges levied by local authorities under statutory powers. It is not disputed before the Tribunal that the administrative charges at the rate of Rs. 5 per quintal on molasses sold or supplied by the respondents to the State Government is a levy made under the statute passed by the State Legislature. In view of the wide interpretation to be given to the expression "tax", the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Following this decision several cases have been disposed of and they are all in appeal before us.
(3.) In Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC, (1921) 1 KB 64, it is observed : "In a Taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equality about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.";